Feasibility of a home-based physiotherapy intervention to promote post-stroke mobility: A randomized controlled pilot study

Telerehabilitation for Neurological Motor Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Quality of Life, Satisfaction, and Acceptance in Stroke, Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson's Disease

Telerehabilitation (TR) seems to be a viable and feasible solution to face the rehabilitative challenges posed by neurological impairments and to improve patients' quality of life (QoL). This review aims to synthesize and analyze the evidence on the impact of physiotherapy intervention through TR on QoL in patients with stroke, Parkinson's disease (PD), and multiple sclerosis (MS), together with an evaluation of their satisfaction and technology acceptance levels. Through a systematic search of the literature and a screening process, treatment effects were assessed with meta-analyses using the standardized mean difference, setting the confidence interval at 95%. We included 28 studies in the review, which were analyzed for methodological quality, whereas 16 studies were included in the meta-analyses. The results suggest a significant improvement in QoL in patients who underwent TR. We were unable to perform analyses for satisfaction and technology acceptance outcomes due to insufficient data. Overall, motor TR has a positive impact on the QoL of patients with neurological diseases, especially in stroke patients; although caution is needed in the interpretation of the results due to the high heterogeneity found. For PD and MS, TR seems to yield comparable results to in-person treatment.

Telerehabilitation service impact on physical function and adherence compared to face-to-face rehabilitation in patients with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) appraise the available evidence of telerehabilitation program effects on functional outcomes, adherence, and patient satisfaction compared to face-to-face programs after stroke; and (2) provide direction for future outcome measure selection and development for clinical research purposes. TYPE: Systematic review and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials.

LITERATURE SURVEY

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Proquest Theses and Dissertations, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies published in English from 1964 to the end of April 2022.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 6450 studies were identified, 13 were included in the systematic review, and 10 with at least 3 reported similar outcomes were included the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of results was evaluated using the PEDro checklist.

SYNTHESIS

Telerehabilitation demonstrated equivalency in outcomes across several domains and was favored compared to conventional face to face alone or when paired with semisupervised physical therapy on Wolf Motor Function performance score (mean difference [MD] 1.69 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-3.17) and time score (MD 2.07 seconds, 95% CI -4.04 to -0.10, Q test = 30.27, p < .001, I2  = 93%), and Functional Mobility Assessment in the upper extremities (MD 3.32 points, 95% CI 0.90-5.74, Q test = 5.60, p = .23, I2  = 29% alone or when paired with semisupervised physical therapy). The Barthel Index participation measures of function demonstrated improvement (MD 4.18 points, 95% CI, 1.79-6.57, Q test = 3.56, p = .31, I2  = 16%). Over half of summarized study ratings were determined to be of good to excellent quality (PEDro score 6.6 ± 2.3 points). Adherence varied in available studies from 75%-100%. Satisfaction levels of telerehabilitation were highly variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Telerehabilitation can improve functional outcomes and promote therapy adherence after stroke. Therapy protocols and functional assessments need substantial refinement and standardization to improve interpretation and clinical outcomes.

Measures to ensure safety during telerehabilitation of people with stroke: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Measures used to prevent adverse events during the implementation of exercise sessions delivered via telerehabilitation can be varied, ranging from simple telephone monitoring to synchronous therapist-led sessions. However, this information is scattered in the literature, as evidence synthesis studies have only addressed the safety, satisfaction, and effectiveness aspects of exercise delivered via telerehabilitation.

AIMS

This scoping review aims to describe that measures are used to ensure safety during exercise sessions delivered to people with stroke through telerehabilitation, as reported by authors of primary studies. Secondarily, it describes the designs most frequently used to notify the effects of telerehabilitation and evidence level, the characteristics of the participants and type of stroke, and the characteristics of telerehabilitation.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

A scoping review was conducted according to the Joana Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations. A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL, and CINHAL was conducted from inception to August 2022, and a review of systematic review references on the topic. We included primary studies that enrolled adults with stroke who underwent exercise delivered via telerehabilitation. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction, and disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. A qualitative analysis of the information was performed. One hundred seven primary studies (3991 participants) published between 2002 and 2022 were included. Most studies were case series (43%) and rated with an Oxford level of evidence of "4" (55.3%). Regarding randomized clinical trials, half included 53 or more participants (IQR 26.75 to 81). Most studies applied the exercises via asynchronous telerehabilitation (55.1%), of which only ten reported measures to avoid adverse events. Some of the measures included assessing the location where exercises are to be performed, only using a seated position, and using live warning systems that prevent or stop exercises when they are risky.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of measures implemented to prevent adverse events during exercise delivery via asynchronous telerehabilitation is scarce. Future primary studies should always consider reporting adverse events related to exercise delivery via telerehabilitation and strategies implemented to decrease the incidence of these unwanted safety events.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202290104.

The effect of telerehabilitation on balance in stroke patients: is it more effective than the traditional rehabilitation model? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

Telerehabilitation and telemedicine have gradually gained popularity. In 2019, the outbreak of COVID-19 started in Wuhan and then spread across the world. To date, most countries have opted to coexist with the virus. However, patients, especially those who have suffered a stroke, should take measures to avoid being infected with any disease as much as possible since any infectious disease can lead to adverse events for them. Telerehabilitation can be beneficial to stroke patients as they are less likely to be infected by the virus. In recent years, several studies on telerehabilitation have been conducted globally. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of telerehabilitation on the balance ability of stroke patients, compare the efficacy of conventional rehabilitation with telerehabilitation, explore the characteristics of telerehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation, and provide recommendations for rehabilitation programs in the context of the global pandemic.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase, the Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022 for randomized controlled trials published in English that evaluated the improvement of balance function in stroke patients after telerehabilitation and compared the differences between telerehabilitation (TR) and conventional rehabilitation (CR). The random-effects model was utilized to calculate mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate intervention effects. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed according to the I² values. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.

Results

We included nine studies in the system evaluation, all of which were included in the pooled analysis. All outcomes in the experimental and control groups improved over time. The comparison between groups concluded that people who received the telerehabilitation intervention had a significant improvement in the Berg Balance Scale (MD = 2.80; 95% CI 0.61, 4.98, P < 0.05, I2 = 51.90%) and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (MD = 8.12; 95% CI 6.35, 9.88, P < 0.05, I2 = 0) compared to controls. The Timed Up and Go test (MD = -4.59; 95% CI -5.93, -.25, P < 0.05, I² = 0) and Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment-Balance (MD = 2.50; 95% CI 0.39, 4.61, P < 0.05) scored better in the control group than in the experimental group. There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusion

Studies on changes in medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic also demonstrated that, for stroke patients, telerehabilitation achieves similar effects as the conventional rehabilitation model and can act as a continuation of the conventional rehabilitation model. Owing to the different equipment and intervention programs of telerehabilitation, its curative effect on the static balance and reactive balance of stroke patients may be different. Currently, telerehabilitation may be more conducive to the rehabilitation of patients' static balance abilities, while conventional rehabilitation is more effective for the rehabilitation of patients' reactive balance. Therefore, further studies are needed for investigating the difference in efficacy between varied devices and telerehabilitation programs. Further research is needed on static and reactive balance. In addition, such research should have a large body of literature and a large sample size to support more definitive findings based on the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Systematic review registration

CRD42023389456.